Quote:
Originally posted by jseal
Belial,
I think that the idea expressed by some who are opposed to the death penalty is that society is lessened or demeaned by the act of executing murderers.
I think that one could reasonably question that assertion.
To draw a practical example, a substantial part of every human is the part that defends the whole body from something which it, the body, find dangerous. We call this the immune system, and without it we die. This is analogous to a substantial portion of society existing to defend the society. We call these the armed forces, traditionally (in democratic societies) separated into those who defend the society from external threats, the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.; and those who defend society from internal threats, the police. Both groups are controlled by people who are, again in democracies, themselves controlled by the society at large.
Murderers are a group of people who reject society's prohibition of citizens initiating the use of physical force to achieve their aims. Please note that most people who kill are not murderers. Crimes of passion and situations of limited mental capacity exclude most killers from the set of murderers. Murder is, by definition, pre meditated. Each murderer wanted and planned to do it. Thus, as a result, these people have rejected the constraints of their society. They need, therefore, not be accorded the same accommodations that the State makes for its citizens.
This is why, usually, the police and the military report to, and are under control of politicians. It is through the politicians who write the laws that each society realizes both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in itself.
If a society’s laws reflect the mores and beliefs of that society, then one is forced to accept that that society’s laws about capital crimes – and punishments – will reflect that society.
I would then ask if the society of England = France = USA = India = Australia = Canada = Germany? If not, then why would one – why SHOULD one expect their laws to be the same?
|
Murders reject the constraints of their societies. This is true, but should not the constraints of society be reflected in its laws? Therefore, isn't any criminal, as a breacher of those constraints, not entitled to the protection of society? Aren't assaulters and batterers examples of people rejecting society's constraint against the use of physical force to achieve their aims? Should we then authorize the supervised beating of convicts of these crimes by their victims? Is it not somewhat hypocritical of society to breach its very own constraints in the enforcement of those same constraints?
What do we hope to achieve by executing convicted murderers? Vengeance? Seems unlikely; if revenge was an ideal of society, we'd permit normally criminal acts to be justified as the taking of revenge. We don't. Provide a deterrent? Studies consistently show the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, and why would it? Penalties only become part of the equation when the offender is caught, and no-one with the premeditation you describe murders under the belief that they will be caught.
Eliminate the possibility of recidivism? Murderers are the least likely of criminals to become recidivists, yet few, if any crimes correspond to sentences with that sort of permanency. Perhaps one could argue that the crime is so serious that a zero recidivism rate should be sought. So what methods do we use to achieve that?
We pick a jury of peers - and I don't know about you, but honestly, some of my "peers" I'd not trust to use my toilet, let alone decide someone's fate - with no legal training, no proven intelligence quotient, and no proven ability to even pay attention to interpret cases presnted, one by the state, with unparalleled access to the media, and by personnel whose jobs largely depend on the satisfaction of voters desires (I'm sure I don't need to draw a picture connecting these two factors), and another, presented on behalf of the accused, often by an attorney whose salary is paid from the very same budget bankrolling the prosecution (!), and we hope to come out with the correct answer to the question of guilt or innocence, and then, if guilty, whether the accused should be executed or not. Forgive me for not having the greatest of confidence here! Sure, there are avenues of appeal - for those who can afford it - but those are based around points of law and due process, not jury (mis)interpretation, if I recall correctly. I personally believe that any justice system that is not completely capable of self-correction is flawed, and any justice system including scope for the death penalty lacks this capability and is therefore flawed.
Then there's the consideration of the effect the death penalty has on those who enforce it and participate in its machinations. Might it be that after participating in several executions - possibly, being the actual executioner - psychological damage, what some might consider a dehumanizing effect occurs? The more modern of firing squads do not permit their members to be aware of their status, or non-status as the firer of the lethal bullet, loading all but one gun, whose holder is unknown, with blanks.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. The above reasons are why I oppose the death penalty, as best I could come up with now.
*phew*